My resolutions from last year went pretty well so let’s do that again.
I plan to keep working out four times a week, but this is enough of a habit that I feel like I don’t need to “resolve” to do it. Diet-wise, my target weight is below 189. Counting calories is the most straightforward way I’ve found to achieve this, but I want to be clear about the metric that I most care about here.
Last year I hoped to get on a publication for Green Bank work. That’s been delayed but I still hope to get it done this year. Plus, I’d also like to get a publication from my MeerKAT work. So, two parts to this goal.
A publication isn’t really the ultimate goal here. The ultimate goal is to find aliens. But barring that, I’d like to have the MeerKAT pipeline up and operational, getting daily or weekly notifications for the best candidates, basically the way a sane astronomy data pipeline should be operating. I think there will probably be some paper as a side effect because a lot of other people desire papers. So publication seems like a decent proxy goal.
I think I should get more “into the AI space”. I have some ideas, but I want to stay open to flex around different ideas. In 2023 my goal is to release a “respectable AI project”.
What makes it respectable? I’ll know it when I see it. Something that I would respect if someone else did it.
I’m thinking about the math-theorem-proving space; I’ll start off trying some stuff there.
My goal is to learn enough Spanish to read Ficciones in Spanish. I bought the book on Kindle many years ago and realized my Spanish wasn’t good enough. I’ve been doing Duolingo for about a year, but it’s really just been a refresh of my high school Spanish, and I need to push harder to get it better.
Why learn Spanish? I feel like there’s an intellectual value in learning a second language that’s hard to describe. Your primary language is the filter through which you see so much of the world. Isn’t it strange that you can load up a second one?
I love learning new programming languages and I feel like I get a lot from that. I also love reading books. So maybe I will get something from a second language.
I don’t think I should just start off plowing through the book, I should start with a harder push on Duolingo, at least get my verb tense knowledge solidified, maybe aim for better vocabulary too.
5. Secret resolution
I also have a secret resolution! But it’s secret.
I’ll see how much I feel like giving updates. Last year I did a mid year one and that seemed just fine. The main value of the update was that I lost some energy to write blog posts and gained some energy to switch around the sort of astronomy project I was working on.
Last year I made some New Year’s resolutions. Let’s take a look at how they did.
1. Calorie Counting
I got weak at actually counting calories toward the end and skipped like half of December. But I did a lot better than I expected at losing weight. Somehow I am reluctant to make an explicit weight goal on here, but the bottom line is to get healthier and for getting healthier for an overweight guy, there is a very logical metric of losing weight. So let’s just get past that. I’ve been tracking my weight with the iOS health app for a while and per year my average has been:
- 2016: 231.0
- 2017: 227.4
- 2018: 210.3
- 2019: 213.4
- 2020: 218.3
- 2021: 218.0
- 2022: 191.8
A bit of an improvement after I left Facebook. But really this past year has been a huge improvement. The main danger is backsliding, which is a big danger since calorie-counting is so annoying. From here, I just need to “maintain”.
2. Astronomy Publication
Overall I missed this goal. I think the Green Bank work will end up in a paper, just not during 2022. I think seticore will end up as the core signal processing component for the MeerKAT pipeline, but probably just a small part of the VLA pipeline, and nothing is really functional here at end-of-year 2022, PR announcements notwithstanding.
I’m glad I set this goal. I’m a little frustrated that I don’t really see an obvious path for improvement in retrospect. Maybe this is a sign that I should shift some of my mental energy elsewhere. I like this astronomy work, but it is often the sort of project that naturally has a certain amount of stuff to do, and after some point there are diminishing returns. I guess this is a result of working on things with a lot of other people.
This is just a normal part of my routine now. I’m happy with it. I stalled in terms of how much weight I can lift, but I’ve been adding more rowing machine to my routine, which seems pretty good. All in all, success.
Well, after being slightly behind at the end of H1, my blogging just totally collapsed. I lost the will to fight for this one. I like blogging, or at least I like the sort of reflecting on things that I do while blogging, but blogging ends up being something I can do with my most productive mental energy. I’m sitting down, ready to work, and I could fire into anything, and blogging is one of those things. But it’s never really the most important thing I want to do on a particular day. Or if it is, it’s because of some artificial thing. I don’t know.
So, I missed this goal too, but really because I stopped wanting to do it, more than because I stopped feeling able to do it. Different from the astronomy publication one.
5. Secret resolution?
One thing I randomly started doing is Duolingo, at which I have approximately a year streak. I started it sort of in the spirit of resolutions but I didn’t make a real resolution for it. I feel good about that although I’m a little worried it’s too superficial, like it just teased some of my ancient Spanish learning back into my forebrain, rather than necessarily giving me enough to do anything.
Resolutions are great. I’ll do another set for this year.
The personal health stuff worked really well. The intellectual accomplishment stuff, not so well. But that’s partially because my personal health goals are like, “decent health”, and my intellectual accomplishment goals are like, “I need to push myself to excel”.
It’s also because I have a more functional set of habits around things like reading books and coding. I just enjoy that and do it fairly regularly. I don’t really need or want resolutions to mess with it.
Maybe I should have some separate set of things which is “the routine”, which is good, and I need to keep doing it, but I don’t need to make resolutions for it. I mean, I guess I have that? Should I write it down? I don’t know. I’ll think about it a bit.
Previously I wrote about using radio telescope arrays to look for aliens and today I have even more to say on the topic.
What is a Radio Telescope Array Again?
It’s a bunch of radio telescopes that are all pointed in the same direction. A radio telescope takes measurements in the form of complex numbers. These are voltages, but I prefer to just think of them of big 2d arrays of complex numbers. You get a voltage for each frequency, and you take measurements repeatedly over time, so you can index your array by time and frequency dimension.
These complex numbers mean something. A clear, real radio signal comes in to an antenna looking like a wave. Not like an ocean wave or a sine wave where it just goes up an down. A complex wave. It’s like the value is spinning around in a circle. It starts at
1, it spins around to
i, it spins around to
-1, it spins around to
-i, it spins back around to
1, and then the wave continues.
The nice thing about having a radio antenna array is that for a real radio signal coming from outer space, you should pick up that signal in all the arrays. So if you pick up a signal in half of the arrays and not in the others, it’s coming from somewhere on Earth. Maybe it’s coming from somewhere a lot closer to some of the antennas than others. Maybe it’s interference coming from a loose wire inside just one of the antennas. Who knows, but it’s some sort of interference and you can skip it.
There’s more, though. You should pick up the same signal in all the arrays. With one difference - some of the arrays are closer to the target. This is true even if your target is a pulsar halfway across the universe! The radio signal will arrive at some antennas nanoseconds before the others, and this means that the complex numbers you get will be different. But they will be shifted by the same amount over time.
This means, if you treat the sequence of voltages as a complex vector, the vectors you get from the different antennas should have… a complex correlation coefficient whose absolute value is very close to 1. I wanted that sentence to be simpler but I think it would lose something. If these were real vectors, you would just say, they should have a really small angle between them. They should be pointing in the same direction. Since they’re complex vectors you have to be a bit more fidgety about the math, when exactly you take the absolute value, when exactly you transpose things. But you the reader can ignore that for now.
The x and y axes here are the same, one row and column for each antenna. The cell color is the absolute value of the correlation coefficient - yellow is highly correlated, purple is uncorrelated.
Here’s what it looks like for a signal that the MeerKAT telescope picked up when I’m pretty sure it was just picking up some interference:
The left side has the names of the antennas. They seem perversely named because not every antenna is online at any given time. Here m021 and m048 weren’t working for some reason. The diagonal line is yellow because every antenna is perfectly correlated with itself.
What’s interesting to me is that you can see some square-ish patterns, like m038 and m039 are very highly correlated. And in fact if you check out a map of the MeerKAT facility you can see that antennas m038 and m039 are right next to each other. Great - this looks like RFI, something close enough to Earth that a distance of hundreds of meters changes how the signal is received.
For comparison, this shows a real signal, that the Allen Telescope Array picked up from a Mars rover.
Everything is very correlated. This is clearly picking up the “same thing” on the different antennas.
All the formulas here are pretty standard stuff in radio astronomy world. There isn’t a great theory for “what interference looks like”, but there are a lot of great theories for “what real signals look like”. Real data is the opposite - we don’t have a lot of real data from alien signals, but we have lots of data with radio interference in it. So we have to test out a bunch of theoretically justified metrics and see for which one the interference rarely matches the real-signal-theory. That’s what these charts represent to me, a demonstration that the correlation metric is effective in practice at differentiating interference from signal.
But the neat thing isn’t being able to differentiate signal from noise, it’s being able to do this “at scale”, so that we can run this signal processing continuously as the radio telescope records data at 200 gigabytes per second.
We’re not there yet. This correlation metric isn’t fast enough to run in the “first pass” that runs on all the input data. I’ve been doing all this analysis on “second pass” data, which has already been filtered down by other algorithms. Which is okay, but, first pass is better. So we are going to need a slightly different metric….
It’s been a little while since I blogged about analyzing radio signals so I thought I’d write a bit more about what I’ve been up to.
A stamp is the casual name for the input data from a radio telescope array, with a separate reading for each antenna, in a small range of frequencies, where a first pass on the data saw “something interesting”. This data is stored as complex voltages, because it’s basically a voltage going through a wire in a sensor, but you can graph its magnitude as yellow = strong signal, blue = weak signal, and that’s what I’m showing here.
This data is from the MeerKAT telescope in South Africa. Right now, the way this system works is roughly that every five minutes, the telescope records 60TB or so of data. We do a pass over the data to look for interesting stuff, and then when we find interesting stuff, we save a little neighborhood of relevant data in the “stamp”.
What is a Radio Telescope Array?
When I say “radio telescope”, think a big dish that looks like a satellite dish but it’s like 40 or 300 feet across. Not the sort of telescope you look into with your eyes. When I say “radio telescope array” think a whole bunch of these big dishes in a flat desert in the middle of nowhere.
Why Radio Telescope Arrays?
You can see that in this data, antenna 42 is showing “something”, and the other antennas are showing “nothing”. Unfortunately, that means this is not aliens. An alien signal would be coming from very far away, so it should show up pretty similarly in all the different antennas.
This is useful data to have, though! “Traditionally”, i.e. in most radio telescope searches for aliens in the years 1990-2020, the best method for distinguishing alien signals from other stuff has been to look at the shapes on these charts.
Big blob: a wide-band radio signal, could be a pulsar, quasar, interference
Vertical line: an artificial signal moving in unison with the receiver, i.e. on Earth, so it’s interference not a signal
Diagonal line: maybe an alien!
The biggest problem with these searches is that diagonal line does not necessarily mean alien. It just means a radio signal from a source that is not sitting still on the surface of the earth. We have tried to get around this by doing a “cadence analysis”, i.e. moving the telescope to point in different directions, and seeing if that makes the signal go away. This doesn’t get rid of everything, though, because sometimes a signal will just appear and disappear because it’s faint.
The array is cool because now we have a new, very powerful way to analyze signals - we can compare how the different antennas recorded the same event.
Back in the 70’s, the Wow signal got people excited that maybe we were sensing an alien signal. That signal was about 30 times stronger than baseline noise. But, nowadays we pick up signals that strong all the time. Just turn on your radio telescope, wait five minutes, and you’ll probably see a couple of them. The sample signal I pasted above is about that strong.
Yeah, there’s a lot more radio interference out there nowadays. Still, it seems pretty clear to me that the Wow signal was some sort of radio interference. We didn’t have any strategies at all, back then, for differentiating narrow band interference from real alien signals. Academia isn’t really set up to clearly communicate information like, “In the past fifty years, it’s become slowly obvious to most practitioners that Theory X is incorrect.” If it was set up that way, though, I think the general consensus nowadays would be that the Wow signal was just terrestrial interference.
Radio telescope arrays are not just redundant copies pointing at the same thing. They also have very precise timing measurements. It’s precise enough that you can tell when a radio signal arrives at one antenna slightly before arriving at the other antenna. You can use this to very precisely determine of the precision of an astronomical radio source, like a pulsar.
Not only do you have two real numbers that are supposed to be very close to each other for a real signal, you have two complex numbers that are supposed to be very close to each other for a real signal.
This lets us, in theory, differentiate between a signal that is coming from a local source like an airplane or a satellite or a cell phone, versus a signal that is coming from extremely far away, like an alien planet.
Well, our system is operational on MeerKAT and recording stamps. We now have far too many stamps to analyze them with our current set of tools. So we’ll need some better tools….
After the overwhelming popularity of last week’s blog post taking notes on an AI paper, I thought I’d continue the series.
So there was a reference in the Chollet paper to the paper Inductive Programming Meets the Real World, which sounded interesting. Let’s check that out today.
But first, what is inductive programming? Let’s check Wikipedia.
Jeez. There’s dozens and dozens of references, all this history. I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable about general computer science things, and yet I have never heard of inductive programming. It gives me a sensation of… vertigo? Like you peer over the edge and see instead of a little ridge, the hole goes deep, so deep you have to give up hope of ever truly exploring its boundary.
But basically, it’s learning programs given some sort of incomplete specification. As opposed to, learning programs given an entirely complete specification, which is “deductive” programming. Naturally I haven’t heard of that at all either.
How do these people get Wikipedia pages? Is this good for anything? Does it actually work? I guess this is just the divergence of academic and industrial computer science.
I guess the most logical sort of incomplete specification is, here’s a bunch of inputs and outputs. That makes sense. Any other sort of formalistic way to specify anything seems like a pain.
Meeting the Real World
The paper has a couple Microsoft authors and seems to allude heavily to this one feature in Excel where it will autogenerate transformations for columns. It’s funny that they don’t explicitly say anything about it, but I’m guessing there’s some half-research half-product group, and they built this feature for Excel and also published this paper about their work.
They say that originally inductive programming dealt with simple, abstract logical tasks like sorting or reversing a list. There’s no citation here, though. Huh! How exactly do you learn to sort a list from examples? That doesn’t seem simple at all to me. I mean, deep learning generally cannot do it. What form of sort does it learn? Insertion sort?
The authors also seem to care a lot about “no code” operation. Helping people out who don’t know how to program. That’s all well and good, but it seems like academic research is precisely the opposite way to investigate no-code tools. Academic research is good if you are like, trying to solve abstract math puzzles, or decoding radio telescope signals, something where there’s no possible profit, so the best funding is going to be through the academic channel. Whereas the top ten no-code tools out there are all going to raise more money than any academic group has access to.
This section is like a little survey covering different techniques for inductive programming. My point of view is, I feel like there is a “general skill” for programming, and I am curious about which of the different techniques seem to me like promising ones for obtaining this general skill.
To me, the whole idea of a DSL is like, a way of stretching your techniques to go a little bit further, but something that fundamentally doesn’t scale very far. It’s like the Jekyll markup language. (On my mind since I was just debugging some Twitter card markup problems with this blog.) It’s great for building websites, but if you try to make everything obey this restricted form of
strip_html | replace foo bar | remove_newlinesyou’re eventually going to create a confusing mess.
In particular, is there some DSL synthesizer that could learn to sort lists, if it hadn’t seen this before? It seems like cheating to put something like “insert into a sorted list” into the DSL. So you’d have to get down to basic enough things like appending to a list, comparing… at that point it isn’t really a DSL any more.
This is just more DSL. Ways to handle even larger piles of DSL rules. Again I don’t see how it could learn to sort lists.
This sounds cool but I don’t really understand how it works. In the example they invent an auxiliary function which, when applied to a
fold, reverses a list. That… makes sense. How does it work though? Can it do sorting? I can’t tell, here. I might have to dig in more, hunt down this Henderson paper.
Let me think about it for a bit. How would you automatically program a list-reverser? You could guess that the first step would be popping a list apart into head and tail. But then what? Maybe what you really need is to work backwards, to guess that you need to calculate two things, you need to calculate the last item of a list, and you also need to calculate the reversed everything-but-the-last. That doesn’t seem like it’s making progress, though. Well, I don’t know how this could work. But allegedly Henderson does. Seems like a promising lead.
This section annoys me because it’s like, okay first let’s think of everything in terms of Prolog. And then the good news is, hey we have reduced search times for some task. It’s like looking through a portal into an alternate universe where Prolog matters, everyone knows that there is important work done in the world by Prolog, and improving the performance of Prolog programs is obviously an interesting idea.
I tried and failed to dig through the Prologisms here. I am dubious that difficult goals will look like proving
New kinds of brute-force search
Now this sounds promising! It doesn’t really get into the details, though. Just says that there are so many possible programs, it’s hard to check them all, and has some references. Okay.
New approaches are needed which allow users to decompose more complex tasks into sufficiently small subtasks and then incrementally compose the solutions.
Yes… although really once you can correctly decompose a programming problem into subtasks, you’ve often done the hardest part. So perhaps this isn’t really a no-code thing to do, but just a problem for the automatic code writer.
List reversing is a good example here. The simplest program to reverse a list adds in some “auxiliary data”. In pseudocode:
def reverse_and_add(x, y): "Does reverse(x) + y" if empty(x): return y return reverse_and_add(tail(x), cons(head(x), y))
Once you know you’re implementing
reverse_and_add, it’s a lot easier than when you’re just told you have to implement
reverse. And then
reverseis a special case.
At some point this was a “trick” I was learning. These recursive programs, often you want to tack in some extra information to come along on the recursive structure. You need to be “building the answer” as you go along. Like when you have a data structure and only later do you think, ah gee it would be nice if every internal node in this tree also kept track of the total weight of its subtree.
How would a computer get here? I don’t know.
Well, this was interesting, sort of a mini-survey. I like writing down these notes - honestly I just take far more detailed notes than I do when I’m not going to make them public, and I think about these papers a lot more, and that’s the best part about writing these posts.
this is page 1 of 12. next.